[TEST/REVIEW] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) andnetgraph(4)

[Julian Elischer]

Gleb Smirnoff wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>A> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:32:35AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>A> > J> If each active divert socket number had a pointer to the module to which it
>A> > J> was attached then  you could divert to either in-kernel netgraph targets or
>A> > J> to userland socket based targets.  Currently of you divert to a divert
>A> > J> 'port number' and nothing is attached to it, the packet is dropped.
>A> > J> If a divert socket is attached to it, it is sent ot teh socket.
>A> > J> I would just suggest that is not a great leap of imagination that
>A> > J> attaching to a hook named 3245 would attach a netgrpah hook to the ipfw
>A> > J> code in the sam enamespace as the divert portnumber, and that a
>A> > J> subsequent attempt to attach a divert socket to that port number woild
>A> > J> fail. The packets diverted there would simply go to the netgraph hook
>A> > J> instead of going to a socket or being dropped.
>A> > 
>A> > I understand your idea now. I'll work in this direction.
>A> 
>A> I like Julian's idea.  And if you look at the mtag's the only thing that
>A> is extracted is the rule number for divert, dummynet and netgraph (your
>A> patch).  Ideally this should be merged into one tag if possible and not
>A> an architectual hack.
>
>When writing node, I was thinking about merging this into one tag. However, I
>expected negative response to this idea, from other developers.
>
>Anyone else agree that these tags should be merged?
>

which tags exactly?

>
>  
>